BKM TECH » Kerith Kosshttps://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere
Technology blog of the Brooklyn MuseumWed, 26 Jul 2017 16:24:08 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.4Connecting with Conservationhttps://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2012/06/26/connecting-with-conservation/
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2012/06/26/connecting-with-conservation/#commentsTue, 26 Jun 2012 15:01:13 +0000http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/?p=5653If you’ve been through Connecting Cultures, you’ve probably wondered at the number of diverse objects. You may not be aware, however, of the planning and activity that goes into an installation of this depth. And if conservators have done our jobs, you hopefully won’t even know that we’ve been there—yet our work can have a dramatic effect on how artwork is presented.

An Islamic tile panel from Damascus, Syria (39.407.1-54) underwent extensive conservation for the installation. Previously the tiles had been assembled, set into concrete, and put into the wall of the Islamic Galleries. Losses and cracks were filled with plaster and painted a flat, medium brown. A common restoration for the early 20th century, this resulted in a panel that weighed over 800 pounds!

Since this structure was so cumbersome, the tiles were removed from the cement backing. We used a power saw to cut them apart along the grout lines, carefully avoiding the tiles, and then cleaved them from their backings.

Tiles were separated from the backing by inserting a chisel into air pockets between the tile and the cement after the tiles were cut out of the panel with a power saw (39.407.27)

After all of the old restorations were removed, we examined the tiles. Variations in technical characteristics between tiles indicated they could be from different sources. Many were broken and a few had smaller fragments of similar tiles inserted into losses. Several numbering systems were on the backs of the tiles and some were higher than the 48 tiles that existed in our construction, suggesting that the panel may originally have been larger.

These observations made us consider how the tiles should be displayed. Rearranging, cutting, and inserting fragments of mismatched tiles to make the pattern continuous had been widespread techniques for reconstructing tile panels, but was the current condition an accurate reflection of how the panel would have originally looked? Would leaving it fragmentary with missing tiles ruin the aesthetic?

In a previous restoration, fragments were inserted into trimmed tiles to create a complete tile. Here, the pattern is the same, but doesn’t quite match (39.407.46, .50)

We decided that all the tiles and fragments would be included in the new display. Tiles would be individually mounted without grout or restorations. The effect was that they would be separate objects, but each an integral part of a larger collection. This also allowed for changes that cement and mortar does not—tiles can be removed, displayed and examined separately without having to disturb the entire panel.

Art handlers perform a test hanging of the tiles before installing them in the galleries.

In creating this new mount, we were faced with another challenge: the panel would be installed over 6 feet above the floor. The mount would need to be easy and safe for installation, but satisfy concerns about the appearance. The tiles were mounted in columns on to backing boards, so that eight tiles could be installed at a time. When the boards were pushed together, they created the entire panel.

The newly conserved Islamic tile panel is in the “Connecting Places” section of Connecting Cultures. Tell us what you think! Were we successful in presenting a complete object? Do you miss the cement and grout of a traditional tile panel? Can you see the inserted fragments? Do the losses detract from the overall appearance?

Look for conservators and other Museum staff serving as “connectors” in the gallery to find out more about the objects in the installation.

]]>https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2012/06/26/connecting-with-conservation/feed/4Elvis is in the buildinghttps://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2011/08/08/elvis-is-in-the-building/
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2011/08/08/elvis-is-in-the-building/#commentsMon, 08 Aug 2011 16:43:51 +0000http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/?p=5040Elvis is at the Brooklyn Museum and not where you’d expect to find him—in the new installation of the Museum’s African galleries, African Innovations.

Brooklyn’s Elvis is a ceremonial mask of the Nyau Society of the Chewa peoples, who reside primarily in central Malawi. The Nyau is a secret society that creates these masks for inclusion in ritualistic dances as part of initiation ceremonies, chief coronations and funerals. The masks often represent revered ancestral and animal spirits. They also have satirical themes and occasionally depict famous foreigners as a means to provide education on social and cultural values. This unique incarnation of a western cultural icon highlights a fascinating interaction between western and non-western societies.

The mask is hand carved from a single piece of wood with the eyes, mouth and nostrils pierced through. The face is painted with a thick application of pink paint. Synthetic hair defines Elvis’ characteristic pompadour hairstyle and sideburns as well as the eyes and eyebrows. Various textiles and burlap are attached around the neck.

Acquired by the Museum in 2010, Elvis wasn’t quite ready for the spotlight. The hair had been infested with insects, painted areas were dirty and flaking, and the textiles, believed to be original to the mask, were in tatters.

Upon its arrival in the conservation lab, the mask was monitored to determine that live insects were not present, and then it was thoroughly groomed to remove old insect casings and debris. Painted surfaces were lightly cleaned and stabilized. The textiles around the neck were reconstructed and secured around the bottom edge of the mask by stitching the original textile to a support backing of nylon netting—the same netting textile conservators use to stabilize our mummy collection. The netting provides support for the original fabric without altering the appearance.

Before treatment the mask was too fragile for exhibition.

During treatment nylon netting was attached behind the original textile for support.

The conservation of Elvis highlights how conservators approach the treatment of many ethnographic objects. The mask was not restored to what it may have looked like when it was first made. Instead, it was conserved to reflect the history of its use and to make it stable enough to be exhibited safely without further deterioration.

Elvis will be a featured in African Innovations opening August 12th—just in time for the 34th anniversary of the Elvis’ death. So if you can’t make it to Graceland this year, stop by the Brooklyn Museum.

]]>https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2011/08/08/elvis-is-in-the-building/feed/0Take a seat…https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2009/12/01/take-a-seat/
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/2009/12/01/take-a-seat/#commentsTue, 01 Dec 2009 15:54:32 +0000http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/community/blogosphere/bloggers/2009/12/01/take-a-seat/Starting on December 2nd, that’s exactly what you’ll be able to do in the Museum’sFourth Floor Schenck Gallery—in a handcrafted replica of our 17th-century, American, Wainscot Chair. The detailed carving, turning and mortise-and-tenon joinery of the original chair were masterfully replicated by Peter Follansbee, a joiner specializing in 17th-century reproduction furniture for over 20 years.

Mr. Follansbee visited the Museum in March of this year to examine the chair and take measurements. His goal: accurately recreate the work of 17th-century craftsmen, whose techniques can be observed on the chair in details like original handmade pins and joiner’s marks on the legs.

Detail of original hand carved pins and joiner’s marks from the original.

Details of the replica chair during construction at Peter Follansbee’s workshop. Images courtesy of Peter Follansbee.

While Mr. Follansbee started replicating the chair, conservators began an examination to determine the original paint scheme. Although many of these chairs are now painted black or other dark colors, it is unlikely that this was done by the original craftsmen. We wanted the completed replica chair to accurately reflect what the original would have looked like before centuries of use.

Several paint samples were taken from various locations on the chair and made into cross-sections. Cross-sections are an important tool for conservators, allowing us to view the different paint layers and coatings and the order in which they were applied to the surface. Paint samples are mounted in resin, polished and examined with a polarized light microscope.

The cross-sections revealed that the chair had received several applications of paint and varnish. The earliest paint layers appeared to be a bright red and a darker brown followed by multiple applications of the black paint. Red paint was also observed underneath the black paint on the surface of the chair. Natural resin varnishes, which appear green under ultraviolet light illumination, are also visible as later applications in the cross-sections.

Left: Detail of paint cross-section in visible light from the back of the chair showing the lowest red and brown paint layers, followed by multiple layers of varnish and black paint. Right: Detail of paint cross -section in ultraviolet light from the back of the chair showing the lowest red and brown paint layers, followed by multiple layers of varnish (which appear bright white/green) and black paint.

According to Chief Curator, Kevin Stayton, and Curator of Decorative Arts, Barry Harwood, these chairs could have been painted or left unpainted after manufacture. In addition, painted surfaces may have been applied shortly after construction but not by the craftsmen who built them and reflect the history and use of the chair. Although the earliest application of paint is red, it could not be determined when this layer was applied.

Following a discussion between conservators, curators and Mr. Follansbee, the replica chair was not painted. We hope that the contrast between the natural and wonderfully hand carved oak of the replica and the patinated original will highlight the intricacy of the handcrafted details, create a closer representation of the chair’s original appearance and accentuate the historic changes that objects such as the Wainscot chair can undergo before entering the Museum’s collection. The replica chair has been coated with oil & turpentine to protect the wood so that it can be appreciated by Museum visitors.